The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

(I'm odd).

Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. I am shocked! SHOCKED I say!

Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

The majority could have kept Bush in office for much longer than he already was.

[Alex]

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

Also note that I removed the electoral college for the Confidence votes, so the small state advantage is removed. Also, the vote is not do you want Bush or the Democrat but do you want Bush or a new election between a Democrat and a Republican. Saying no to Bush does not guarantee the office will change parties, I'm thinking this would weaken loyalty to the person.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Alex

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

I think he might well have been out after four years. I'm not sure he would have been able to muster 51% of the (popular or electoral) votes in 2004 without John Kerry to run against.

[scaeagles]

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

[Alex]

Even Reagan in 1984?

Well, by definition every president would last for at least 5 years (with the last year as a lame duck, but then currently any re-elected president spends 4 years as a lame duck).

Would it being very difficult to go longer than 5 years be a bad thing?

[scaeagles]

Reagan might very well be the exception. And no, I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Would an outgoing president ever be eligible to run again? If so, after how long? After the next 4 year term?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

That's why you'd want a supermajority for a no vote.

By the way, if there's no vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate?

[scaeagles]

I don't necessarily like the supermajority to vote someone out. Seems to grant a lot of power to someone who can fool 40.1% of the people on a permanent basis. That may not be very hard.

[Alex]

Would an outgoing president ever be eligible to run again? If so, after how long? After the next 4 year term?

Hmm....I could go either way. So I'll say that a former president can not run in the election immediately following his no confidence. But then he is eligible for any future full election (so five years minimum between terms).

By the way, if there's no vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate?

Good question. I resolve that by giving Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC each a senator with a 1/3 vote. No more ties. Or, just give the vote to the president (which is essentially what it became once the 12th Amendment was passed).